Chastened gaming rep responds to Internet infamy - So he's repping a controller for disabled people and he's insulting one of them or someone who purchased for them. That's my understanding. Then somehow we're supposed to feel sorry for him? I still don't. Just look at his picture.

Exclusive: Iran hijacked US drone, says Iranian engineer - You really wonder how much of what we read is true or full of crap. We never get the full story. If we make it to heaven it would be fun to spend years finding out what really happened on a lot of history. Who killed JFK, etc.

i love banks, here`s a free debit card, it costs us less money when you use it because we don`t have to employ a teller, but now since so many people are using them we`re going to charge you a convenience fee

People are so ignorant and filled with a sense of entitlement anymore.

Do you think the bank is really making that much money from your checking account that always has less than $1000 in it? Do you think they OWE you something for your free checking account?

They have to create a secure environment for you to make transactions, process all of your transactions, provide you with customer service, local banks and tellers, cover your losses in the event someone steals your debit card and goes shopping, fraud etc.

Up until Obama and Dick Durbin decided to start price-fixing the fees a bank could charge for a debit card swipe, they were able to give you free checking and even rewards points. Now they can't cover their overhead and have to pass those costs on to you through either a monthly fee or some other means.

they give people free checking and debit card use to get people into their banks to have them use their credit card and other loan systems

you should love this story about BoA, it`s capitalism at it`s finest, they said they were going to charge a fee to make more money, other banks said we`re not going to do that because we don`t need to, and the customers said fuck you we`re leaving, then BoA said they weren`t going to implement the fee anymore because they wanted to stay competetive

"They have to create a secure environment for you to make transactions, process all of your transactions, provide you with customer service, local banks and tellers, cover your losses in the event someone steals your debit card and goes shopping, fraud etc.

Up until Obama and Dick Durbin decided to start price-fixing the fees a bank could charge for a debit card swipe, they were able to give you free checking and even rewards points. Now they can`t cover their overhead and have to pass those costs on to you through either a monthly fee or some other means."

There`s a few problems with your logic. Most importantly, debit cards are -cheaper- for banks than virtually all of the alternatives. They tried to charge people for the only service that really doesn`t cost them anything.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/debit-card-fees-are-robbery.html?_r=2&src=rechp

Why didn`t it take? Because it was totally idiotic and based on false assumptions.

The fact that the bank, any bank, is holding my $1000 for me and using it to give business and credit card loans should be a win for the bank as a business institution. Do not think that bank is actually 'holding' that $1000 in some dark, safe place, they're freely putting it into circulation to make more money off of it.

The effect is only compounded as thousands and thousands of customers commit the bank to hold their money.

I have no sympathy for banks. You're on a losing ground here, Charkoth.

I'm not on losing ground you guys just don't understand all of the facts. Fact is if a bank has $1000 of your money they can now lend $9000 out to people since they have to maintain a 10% reserve for all loans.

That being said a bank doesn't have to provide you with anything, they can charge you whatever they want to provide the service of checking and allow direct deposits and debit cards. Competition introduces new services like debit cards instead of checks, direct deposit instead of deposit slips and ATM machines instead of Tellers. These services reduce the costs incurred by the bank which in turn are passed down to you in the form of reduced or eliminated fees. You have to realize your bank has fixed costs that are associated with your account and until you can offset those costs in some way through profit they don't want your business.

Banking is a highly competitive industry and it is an industry that through Government price fixing just lost substantial revenue. EVERY bank just lost revenue not just BoA. The fact you guys are missing is that price-fix will just raise the costs of services your bank provides over time, either visibily through increased fees or more subtley by lower interest rates paid, higher rates charged, or less advantageous terms for agreements or services. It is also possible in some lower income areas you could potentially see some bank closures to compensate.

All businesses build their business around a certain profit margin which is related to their industry and for the most part does not differentiate much in a highly competitive market.

People protesting against BoA's $5 fee are just calling out BoA for taking a highly visible approach to recovering their lost profit. More savvy banks are going to take a less visible approach but ALL banks will get their money from you one way or another.

Competition introduces new services like debit cards instead of checks, direct deposit instead of deposit slips and ATM machines instead of Tellers. These services reduce the costs incurred by the bank which in turn are passed down to you in the form of reduced or eliminated fees.

It doesn't follow that cost savings produced by new services technology will be passed on to the customer, as you so matter-of-factly stated. Banks can just as easily pass NO savings on to the customer, pocket the profits for themselves, and then turn around and charge the customer MORE for the privilege of having a whole bunch of shiny new services ("OOOO!I can deposit checks from my cell phone! Such convenience!"). I'm not sure why you think consumers should be happy about this.

I'm also not sure why you think consumers should be sympathetic to preserving profit margins for banks - frankly, screw the profit margins of the banks. I'm more interested in preserving the profit margin of GroverDill.

Times are tough for everybody - if banks can't figure out how to preserve their profit margin without gouging customers, maybe they can afford to MAKE LESS PROFIT, like everybody else has had to do in this economy.

Charkoth... You are seriously defending banks? After they screwed America just about into the ground? And then took obscene bonuses for doing so? They lied and cheated and stole and now smile as they ask for more profit and you support that? Really?

Are you stupid or just a tool?

"People protesting against BoA`s $5 fee are just calling out BoA for taking a highly visible approach to recovering their lost profit."

Non-sense. It is visible because they are no longer allowed to hide it in five pages of fine print. And HELL YES I`m calling them out for being crooks and theives and still trying to screw the American people.

"More savvy banks are going to take a less visible approach but ALL banks will get their money from you one way or another."

Only stupid tools will keep their money with the big banks any more. Small local banks or even better, credit unions, are the way to go. You keep bending over and letting the big boys have their way with you though, they love it when you let them steal from you.

california handles there celebrity problems ALL wrong. You kill a celebrity by taking their fame. They should be able to fine her. ALOT. If you could TAX earnings of any person that money made off of lohan in anyway, that would help. Movies, music, Playboy spreads, TABLOIDS.... say 50%, and then suddenly nobody wants anything to do with her, because it will cost them money.

Look I'm not defending anyone. I'm being a realist. I'm not pro-bank or anti-bank. I'm glad to see people protesting an increase in fees because that ensures that the bank profit margins will stay low through people leaving banks that charge more fees for alternatives (as I said competition).

You people are emotionally responding to what should be common sense here. I'm only pointing out the fact that the government tried to fix the price of a service which had a net impact of forcing you to pay higher fees in one way or another. As I said the bank is going to get their money one way or another, businesses including banks are in it to make a profit, how much profit isn't decided by you, it is decided by the competition in the market and availability of cheaper alternatives.

The whole thing about this that pisses me off the most is the fact that this amendment removed what was a requirement by Visa and Mastercard for merchants to not charge Credit Card customers more. I don't even have a checkbook, I buy spend everything I spend on my credit card and get 1.25%-3.75% back on everything I spend through cash rewards. If merchants start charging me more for using a card I'm going to have to start carrying around cash again which I haven't done since high school.

In this day and age debit cards and credit cards are the most cost effective and safest method of making a purchase. Do you guys really think you're saving money by having to drive to the bank for cash withdrawals(or using an ATM somewhere) every week and carrying around pockets full of change?

Screw that.

Edit: Also I don't pay my bank a dime nor have I since I first became a customer, leaving them currently isn't an option for me since I get a .5% interest rate discount on my home loan and a .25% discount on my car loan for having my checking through them also. I also NEVER use my debit card (all direct deposit/withdrawal) to buy anything so these changes don't make me any more or less profitable to them.

Charkoth - You are indeed a tool... and a lying tool at that. The very fact that you keep bringing up "price fixing" is proof of it. What was done was that banks were told they could no longer lie to their customers about interchange fees. While technology and efficiency have improved greatly, the fees have still more then doubled in the last ten years. The banks were lying about the costs and you are lying about "price fixing". A $5 fee is not making up lost profits, it is gouging and out right stealing from customers.

You don`t pay a dime to your bank? You are either lying again or you have far more money in that bank then most people have at all. As for only using a credit card... HA! Since the banks lied and stole from the American public, causing the houseing crash, most people either cannot afford or don`t qualify for them any more and must use debit cards or cash.

And yes... People are responding emotionally to seeing someone try and justify banks looking to continue screwing them over. Tools like you don`t get why though, for tools it`s all "the gubmints fault" and not the ones that actually did the screwing. It was banks managing to get rid of Glass Steagall that allowed them to screw America. De-regulation caused it, not regulation.

As I said the bank is going to get their money one way or another, businesses including banks are in it to make a profit, how much profit isn't decided by you, it is decided by the competition in the market and availability of cheaper alternatives.

A bank is going to get THEIR money one way or another? The money in question DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM, it belongs TO THE CONSUMER who is trying use a debit card to access THEIR OWN MONEY.

The situation is no different than if Starbucks unilaterally raised the price of all their muffins by $5 because Guatemala tightened export requirements on coffee beans. You know, to preserve Starbucks' profit margin in the face of unfair government intervention. "Don't like it, Starbucks customers? Take it up with Guatemala. They are the real bad guy here."

I mean, my real problem with the BoA debit card fee is the phenomenal amount of hubris it demonstrates. If banks think that they can get away with charging their customers ridiculous transaction fees for the privilege of being able to spend their own money, then not only does that indicate a willingness to screw their own customers, but it also indicates a stunning lack of creativity and business sense. To me, its an action that borders on sheer incompetence.

Having been in the banking industry for over a decade, I have zero love for these guys.

Congress should look into breaking up these banks because there are about 5 of them calling all the shots with the Fed leading the charge.

While they are regulated heavily today, the best way to do away with them is to live within your means. If nobody borrowed money, the banks would shrink in power. Everytime you charge something and don't pay the balance, you are the one keeping them in business. Today's consumer debt is atrocious and it's the fault of every single person that couldn't save to buy something. But because of the banks, people now buy bigger dollar cars, houses, and other crap they don't need but want.

It`s absolutely ridiculous that the banks that were too big to fail in 2008 are now even larger. The revolving door between investment banks/hedge funds and regulatory agencies in the government has lead to massive deregulation and an almost complete failure of regulators to pursue those that have broken the still existing banking laws.

Both Republicans and Democrats are complicit and corrupt in this failure of government.

Split up the banks, most of them would be bankrupt if not for massive fed support since 2008.
Block regulators from taking industry positions for ten years after regulating them.
Prosecute the bankers that broke the law.

The sad thing is that if either Obama or any republican candidate (except perhaps Ron Paul/Gary Johnson) win then it looks like it`ll be business as usual, if not even more giveaways to the financial sector.

Progjmr reality check buddy - Government setting a price on a business transaction is called "Price Fixing". That is what the government did here.

Keep your emotion out of your reasoning and you'll see more clearly. I'm only pointing out the obvious here, the banks lost revenue and will make it up somewhere else. The government can't fix prices without degrading the service, reducing availability, or causing prices to be raised elsewhere to compensate. It's basic economics for us realists. The ONLY thing that will cause a bank to reduce their profit margins other than a complete government takeover (or total disaster) is competition, and the government is the very driving force behind removing competition from the banks by this whole "tool big to fail" mentality and accompanied bailout.

And yes I've never paid a dime to my bank ever. I still have the original checkbook the bank gave me with most of the checks in it from 10 years ago. They pay me a paltry few cents a month in interest to me actually but I keep an average balance of maybe $1500 in the account that never goes above $4000 and never falls below $800 or so. Keeping money in your bank is stupid, you should either service your debt with it or shift it to your investments.

Everyone with decent credit (and a Job) can get a good credit card that they pay off every month as I do. The only reason people aren't doing so is because of this mentality that "Credit cards are bad" and sheer ignorance, or a better alternative.
If anyone isn't already doing this I highly advise it. Getting an extra $200+ a year and basically Net 30 terms on all of your transactions is not only highly financially savvy, but helps you moderate a tight budget more easily by in essence making all of your charges a one month transaction.

Actually Grover Starbucks regularly does bullshit price raises "due to the rising cost of milk", "Guatemalan Beans" etc. My bag of coffee went up from $10.95 to $13.95 recently. The difference is that coffee is a matter of taste (I've tried the competition and it sucks) and I'm sure a bit of marketing the brand (kind of like Apple) so most people will take it.

Choosing Banks are a bit different since they are service oriented. Bank of America screwed up by announcing a highly visible surcharge to it's users when it should have known that this isn't the time to visibly increase fees. The example of Netflix is more than enough evidence of that. Rest assured as I said the banks will get their money. I know they used to send me an "open an account with our bank and we'll pay you $300 after 6 months of direct deposit" notice occasionally and I bet those kind of offers will stop as checking accounts just became more expensive.

As I said though, banks charging customers for basic access to their own money is a fundamentally stupid way for them to do business. It'd be like a store putting up a tollbooth that paying customers have to pass through before they can reach the cash register. The fact that they thought they could get away with at all is testament to the fact that the industry is fundamentally broken.

Rest assured as I said the banks will get their money.

Customer deposits still don't belong to the banks. If they want "their money", they should make some legitimate loans and collect interest on those loans. In other words, they should do something to earn it.

I know they used to send me an "open an account with our bank and we'll pay you $300 after 6 months of direct deposit" notice occasionally and I bet those kind of offers will stop as checking accounts just became more expensive.

Banks were able to justify "offers" like that because they believed that the short term costs would be eventually offset by the sorts of fees that the consumer protection bills were put in place to ban. If banks all of a sudden think that those offers are no longer viable, it seems pretty obvious that that will represent a long term win for the consumer and not a loss, as you suggest. Good riddance.

I agree with you Grover on a personal opinion level with one exception, I'm only playing the Devil's advocate for the banks here to show both sides. People often only consider their own side.

The exception that I'm talking of is a Bank's money. When I say their money I'm talking about their profits and banks WILL make a certain profit margin off of their services one way or another. I'm not saying your money deposited in their accounts are theirs I'm saying the margins dictated by their competition will determine how much money they make.

Markets are always finding new ways to creatively make a profit. Bag fees and luggage restrictions were the way Airlines managed it. Accessorial fees for UPS/Fedex are the way they managed it. Bank checking accounts made their money through tansaction fees. Now they need to find another way to recoup those losses in other ways. They were passing them on to Merchants. Now that they can't do that, they will find a way to pass it on to customers at some point.

It will be interesting to see who benefits from these changes the most. I find that regulation in general ends up costing the consumer more than the intended protection that regulation provided them.

The exception that I'm talking of is a Bank's money. When I say their money I'm talking about their profits and banks WILL make a certain profit margin off of their services one way or another.

Banks will make a certain profit margin ONLY IF consumers (in this case, depositors) are willing to pay for the services that banks provide. If the banks are trying to preserve their profit margins by charging higher prices for services that have little or no value to consumers (again, we're talking about providing fundamental access to depositors to use their own money), then not only will their profit margins suffer, but their profit margins DESERVE to suffer. That's capitalism at its most basic - if you can't figure out how to provide a service that has some value to consumers, you deserve to lose profits, period.

The profit-making service that banks are SUPPOSED to be providing is lending and collecting interest, and if they have decided that they don't want to do that anymore, then they are basically hosed - no amount of of trickery involving fees to depositors will save them, because depositors can just as easily up and move their accounts elsewhere.

Well that is just it. Consumers weren't paying a thing. You know the saying "There is no such thing as a free lunch?".

And you can hardly say that portable access to your money from anywhere at any time is of little or not value. Banks provide plenty of services for us, we just have taken them for granted. Maybe some of you guys are younger and haven't been dealing with banks in the day that fees were more commonplace I don't know.

I'm only trying to say if the banks can't find another way to recoup the money they loss somehow through watering down the service, charging fees for less profitable portions of it, or restricting the supply (limiting accounts to minimum deposit limits). I'm only trying to prove that the government just shifted the money around and added more regulatory burden (the price fix wasn't the only piece added by the regulattion).

You simply can not dictate to a business how much money they can an can not make and expect everything else to stay the same, the is the overall point I'm trying to make. I hope people here are getting that. I'm not defending banks, just pointing out the reality of the situation.

And you can hardly say that portable access to your money from anywhere at any time is of little or not value.

Sure it is - there are plenty of places that depositors can put their money that provide the same fundamental ease of access that banks should be providing. Local credit unions are happy to provide many of the same services that major banks charge for for free.

Well that is just it. Consumers weren't paying a thing. You know the saying "There is no such thing as a free lunch?".

This is fundamentally not true. The depositors are investing their funds with the bank in the expectation that they will receive some return. That is why banks have to incentivize deposits by paying interest rates - they NEED that capital or they cannot function in (what used to be) their primary role as a money lender.

My point is that as soon as banks forget this and start trying to treat depositors as regular customers to be monetized instead of actual investors, then they are shooting themselves in BOTH of their feet. Not only WILL their profit margins go down as depositors get fed up and take their money elsewhere, but banks will lose the ability lend the lost capital when they decide to get around to acting like banks again.

As I say, these practices are both fundamentally greedy in the short term and fundamentally stupid in the long.

You simply can not dictate to a business how much money they can an can not make and expect everything else to stay the same, the is the overall point I'm trying to make. I hope people here are getting that. I'm not defending banks, just pointing out the reality of the situation.

It is also reality that you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. If the banking industry response to losing a revenue source due to the government regulation of merchant fees is to try to monetize an aspect of their business that fundamentally cannot be monetized, then screw their profit margin. They don't deserve it.

This is not coming from a place of emotion. In simple capitalism, profit is directly related to the value of the services and products offered by a company. If the major banks can't figure out how to compete in this environment, then they deserve to die and the depositors will take their money elsewhere.

dang starcraft for 29 bux! i just paid 60 last friday arggggh oh well. im enjoying sc2 story mode its awesome. watching unn news on there i can tell blizzard knows how the media works and lies and uses propaganda. big thumbs up to blizz im sure thats woken up people to the lying media!
"Jim raynor is a terrorist"
no hes not mengsk stages false flags!

Increased competition from Credit Unions is really only possible due to government regulation like this one. They are in effect making banks less profitable and thus giving an advantage to Credit Unions, that isn't Capitalism, that is Crony Capitalism.

I'm not talking about Savings accounts or CDs, I'm talking about checking accounts where the average deposit amount is minimal and the activity and risk of fraud is very high. People utilizing CDs or Savings accounts are wasting their money or can't afford to risk it (like 65+).

The issue with Credit Unions is the fact they have less branches and ATMS and if you need easy access to your cash it can be a pain. I used to run my company through a decent sized local Credit Union instead of a bank but I ended up costing myself more money in Gas to make deposits and time trying to make things work with them than it benefited my company in extra interest payments on our deposits. It's all a matter of preference and your access to your local credit union and your needs.

I happen to use a very friendly relatively small (Fifth Third Bank) bank that has always worked with me any time I had an issue and never charges me a dime. I currently have a 3% Interest on my Mortgage and 4% Interest on a car loan with them so I don't see Credit Unions offering anything competitive with that.

My first bank was Bank One which I promptly left after they screwed me several times with mistakes they charged me for. I'm now finally merging my wife's account from Huntington into my account since they are screwing her too. Capitalism is allowing free market competition without the government picking winners and losers.

"Free" checking is a relatively new concept along with "Free" ATMs. Government involvement in price fixing for Banks will only hurt the consumers in the long run. You may not even see the difference in the next year or so, but maybe the next big "Free" service will come at a cost instead.

Credit Unions just don't have the financial capital and reach of a bank to compete for many (not all) people.

Deuce: the intent of pepper spray is to protect cops, not give them an additional avenue to punish people. Much like tasers, it is misused frequently and because people such as yourself who don't understand what its there for aren't as horrified as you should be, I'm sure it'll continue.

Responding to a bunch of liberal activist students with cops in riot gear is ridiculous even if the pepper spray is kept sheathed. If there's a bright side its that unlike the perpetrators of the financial crash and bailout getting off scot-free at least a few people are going to lose their jobs over the episode.

pepper spray is not a drum circle stopper, if they didn`t have pepper spray would it have been ok to just taser them all? or hit them with nightsticks? how about making them dance with repeated gunfire yosemite sam style?

you give them a couple days to leave, then you go in and arrest them, when making an arrest you dont` lead with pepperspray if you`re a real police officer

Who cares if police used pepper spray on these morons? They received more than ample warning to pack up for the weekend and continued to disobey the law.

The only "message" these fools can get out is one of anarchy and defiance against the rules that the rest of us play by while protesting the very thing that makes this country great. Complete and utter ignorance.

Why doesn't the media report the other side? Why are you outraged at the protestors who are hurling feces, raping their fellow protestors, or stealing from them any everyone else in their path?

These kids are lucky they didn't get a dose of what protestors in other countries are getting.

so they`re morons, and non violent, and the price they pay is violent reaction?

maybe it`s just weird thinking but grabbing someone and putting handcuffs on them seems to be the first thing you`d do if they aren`t threatening you, then if that changes absolutely you go to pepperspray stun gun whatever to subdue them

also to say they`re lucky because of what happenes to protesters in other countries is pathetic, just because america might still be the greatest country in the world doesn`t mean when something messes up you look at the worst and say look at what could happen, you try to fix the problem

same argument, but different circumstances
corporate people should be happy they have high taxes, in russia they take all your money and put you in jail! so stop complaining!

Why are you outraged at the protestors who are hurling feces, raping their fellow protestors, or stealing from them any everyone else in their path?

Who said I wouldn't be, if you provide some details, and what does that have to do with anything? Nothing. Another stupid question.

These kids are lucky they didn't get a dose of what protestors in other countries are getting.

Look, this isn't hard to understand. The very establishment that you think these people are flouting with their protesting is cutting John Pike loose for what he did. He'll be lucky if he gets away without being on the receiving end of a large civil suit.

And I don't know what other countries have to do with anything. We're talking about the United States, where cops aren't judge and jury and random non-specific "health and sanitation" concerns don't trump right of assembly.

The protestors knew what was going to happen to them, and they agreed to it when they decided to defy the order.

No they didn't. They asserted their rights, and that's why the people with itchy pepper spray fingers are the ones in trouble.

If the cops are ordered to remove them from the park, and the protestors refuse to move, what else are the cops supposed to do?

I don't think you understand the meaning of a rhetorical question Nate.

The University gave the protesters ample time to demonstrate and gave them ample time to decamp from their property for the weekend. The is a long legal history of University police having the right and authority to remove protesters from their property and arrest them for trespassing if necessary. The University is the one who had their rights infringed upon and ordered the police to clear the area.

The details and the facts are unclear at this point but the University Police were well within their rights to pepper spray those who refused to leave the grounds when ordered. Honestly the details beyond that point are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

America will never have change brought on by protesting like egypt, yemen or other places where the protesters show up and fight mofos for what they want. here in dum dum land they sit down in their birkenstocks and sing kumbaya while sipping on their starbucks. Meanwhile cops come up and spray em, beat the crap out of them and kick em....the media on the other hand is under full control by wall street and the bankers and use divide and conquer tactics saying its either a liberal thing or conservative thing thereby keeping the dum dums in line and the rest of america at home remaining calm.

Only by people getting truly mad...fighting the cops and stuff will anything happen but the media will co opt it and use propaganda to shut it down fast...thats how it works here. Complete scientific dictatorship. all these "occupy" events do nothing except make for big targets for the thugs in back uniforms to torture. The poisoning and dumbing down of america was very effective. you wouldnt have this crap back in 1776 thats for sure.

The climate change deniel (and anti-science by the right in general) that goes on in America is a shame. They pulled this cherry picking of single sentences out of context once already and the corporate owned media ate it up, then completely ignored when things were shown in context refuting what was being implied. So... We are off doing it again. What a shame. I`m very curious to see how bad things get before the deniel ends.

oh, and before the deniers go off, here is a video that explains how this batch of cherry picked quotes are a fraud. Notice that the cherry picked quotes are from an anonymous source but the refutation is from a named source, same as the last batch. Ask yourself, why do the people putting out cherry picked quotes hide, never respond to the refutation yet keep getting the accusation (but not the refutation) all over the news?

The only "message" these fools can get out is one of anarchy and defiance against the rules that the rest of us play by while protesting the very thing that makes this country great. Complete and utter ignorance.

the deatails and the facts are unclear, but details and facts don`t matter

That is because the details and facts were regarding whether or not the police were told not to remove the protesters forcibly which as I said was irrelevant to the topic. The discussion and my point was whether or not they were within their rights to pepper spray protesters who are trespassing in order to forcibly evacuate them. They ARE within their rights to do so, the fact they may have been given orders NOT to do so is besides the point.

Sometimes all I can do is shake my head, Charkoth.

I've moved past the head shaking when you speak Joe, straight into the Facepalm. (=

the police are not within their right to assault people, the police have strict guidelines for using force, they need to be threatened themselves to use those defensive items, walking up to someone and saying "we told you to leave yesterday!" and then blasting them in the face with pepper spray is not how they are supposed to act

hey progjmr wake up and smell the smaller paycheck. the global warming propaganda and lies are so theres a new tax taken from you. stop being a sucker. The warm fall/winter were having is due to CME`s coronal mass ejections from the sun and the high sun activity...even nasa says this. the sun drives the "climate change" not the fat mexican down the road in his el camino with a bad muffler. stop buying into this bullshit science from all gore who owns the very company selling these carbon credits...its for profit. you will NEVER have govt change the weather for better. They can change the weather with chemtrails and haarp technology but they do it for the worse not for the better... these are wicked money hungry eugenics minded killers who run these things...not smiley guys in suits who give 2 cents about you.

there is "climate change" but its planet earth there has always been funky weather..always and there always will. But al gore and the climate change scam artists are there to push a new tax on you. stop being a sucker.

I don't think you understand the definition of "assault". Regardless, your representation of what happened as you know is incorrect.

If you don't obey the law the police have the right to arrest you or in the case of trespassing forcibly remove you. That is the power we give to the police and it is completely legal and justified.

When a bunch of protesters break the law they deserve what they get. I have no doubt the police asked them to leave multiple times before resorting to pepper spray. Ignore the police at your own peril.

When a bunch of protesters break the law they deserve what they get. I have no doubt the police asked them to leave multiple times before resorting to pepper spray. Ignore the police at your own peril.

Get your goddamn hands dirty, throw a few knees into some backs and fucking arrest each of these people instead of lazily spraying everyone, having the shit in the air for on-lookers to get affected and also getting on the officers who decide to actually be officers.

Do your damn job and remove the offenders, don't compound the situation by soaking them in pepper spray unless they were a direct threat to an officer's wellbeing.

I think the allegations against Cain have destroyed his chance at winning the Primary. I don't believe them personally but recognize they are possible. Hopefully he is innocent and these accusers are proven to be liars and he still has enough popularity to make the VP ticket.

After doing a bit of research on Newt and his positions I find myself aligning with him more. I even agree with his immigration policy after hearing him detail it out which I am surprised I agree with. Much like Newt I am a realist. I love Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan in so many ways but it is too big of a step for Washington to take sadly.

Watch the video recently posted on 9-9-9 by herman cain, it lays out the plan pretty simply.

If you haven't watched any of the debates Nebu I highly advise it. Newt is going to rip Obama a new asshole. He is even a top 500 Book reviewer on Amazon which is pretty impressive.

Really the saddest thing is Cain's entire campaign is being destroyed by completely baseless (at this point) accusations. It is almost as though the media is following in the footsteps of the National Inquirer. You'd think they had learned their lesson after Rathergate.

The problem is you have no concept of what he is speaking about. It is funny watching people try to understand the difference.

Herman Cain doesn't support Abortion but he doesn't believe the Government has the power to regulate abortion.

If you go back you'll recall a conversation we had about Cain being a strict "Constitutionalist" which is something I think you had difficulty understanding then. This is a good example of what the means. Personal opinions have no bearing on your interpretation of law.

Cain would BOTCH our foreign policy.
Huntsman would win easily if he had a chance at the general election. Tons of liberals would vote for him over obama, not to mention middle and most of the right.

And he really did things right here in utah. Our economy is bangin', and we are stealing jobs out of california daily. We had our Healthcare reform already, it worked, and is none of that socialized crap that obamacare brought us. Our immigration reform bill wasn't too conservative nor too liberal and problems have been practically nil.

Charkoth - Yeah, go for good old Republican values with Newt like... Cheating on your dying wife... Making money off the housing crises... Ties to health care profits... and just general saying whatever because someone is paying you to say it... Good Plan!

God I'm so sick of fighting ignorance from people like you progjmr. I spend way too much time combating the ignorance of strangers.

Newts wife wasn't dying (she's still alive and was having a benign tumor removed), his wife filed for divorce not him. Yes he cheated and admitted it and married the woman which is more than most slimeballs out there (not excusing cheating on your wife).

He never made money off the housing crisis there are no facts to support that conjecture. Fannie and Freddie paid him for consulting, not lobbying and who cares how he made money in the private sector? He never supported Fannie and Freddie publicly. None of it was an abuse of power or anything immoral or illegal.

Just a bunch of innuendo and conjecture being used to create FUD in people.

"He never made money off the housing crisis there are no facts to support that conjecture. Fannie and Freddie paid him for consulting, not lobbying and who cares how he made money in the private sector?"

Contradict yourself much Charkoth? Didn`t make money off it? Just a few million from Freddie and Fannie? bwahahahahahaha. Not immoral? I guess that depends on your morals... or lack of them.

Yes he cheated and admitted it and married the woman which is more than most slimeballs out there (not excusing cheating on your wife).

That's women, not woman. Newt gets an extra slimeball modifier for cheating and admitting it and marrying the woman TWICE. I mean, that part of his history isn't innuendo or conjecture.

Idunno, Charkoth. Would you still say that being a slimeball in your personal life isn't such a big deal if it was Anthony Weiner or Bill Clinton (again) that were running for President instead of Newt Gingrich? I mean, Weiner and Clinton are both considered "idea guys" on the left, similar to Gingrich, and I'm not sure it's out of the question that we won't see them try to reemerge into politics at some point. Can we count on you to not raise the character issue if they do?

Making money off of a crisis and being paid by Fannie and Freddie are two completely different things. Are you implying anyone who is paid by Fannie and Freddie are "Making money off of a Crisis? You're not fooling anyone progjmr.

Grover I'm not trying to make excuse his infidelity. I pretty promiscuous myself in my teens and early twenties. I think as many of us are immature and dealing with hormonal changes in those years lack of judgement is given more of a "pass" than lack of judgement in later years. There is a good reason a President must be 35 years old. Unlike Newt I thankfully didn't marry until I got all of shit out of my system. He made the mistake of marrying at 19 and then again at 38. I still say if he is going to cheat on someone at least he has the decency to divorce his wife and marry the person. I also could care less about the second wife being cheated on since she was cheating on his first wife with him. I wouldn't feel sorry for him at all if his current wife left him for another man.

I had no major problem with Bill Clinton cheating on his wife. If I were married to Hillary I'd probably do the same. The issue I had with Bill Clinton (And Weiner) is lying about the facts after they were discovered. The same with John Edwards. I'll throw Herman Cain under the same bus the very moment I learn of him being caught in a lie about any infidelity.

Making mistakes and being completely dishonest are two different ballparks in my opinion. While I'd love to have a completely moral, intelligent, 100% conservative candidate I could stand behind such a person doesn't exist(The closest we have to that is Ron Paul and he has too many extreme untenable positions in my opinion).

Once again Newt's not the perfect candidate by any means, but one I can support based upon his intellect, and his positions. My boss shares many qualities with Newt including the history of infedelity but that doesn't stop him from effectively leading our company and he has my respect as a businessman.

Even though I've never been unfaithful to my wife, I can understand people who succumb to the temptations to do so and like drugs I believe that if you do it once it becomes easier to do so again and again.

He made the mistake of marrying at 19 and then again at 38. I still say if he is going to cheat on someone at least he has the decency to divorce his wife and marry the person.

Idunno, I'm not sure we can place cheating on his wife at 38 in the "misgivings of youth" category. Also, I don't really consider divorcing your wife to marry your mistress to be especially decent behavior (also: twice).

I mean, I guess I get what you're saying (yay, true love!), but Clinton and Weiner responded to their scandals by staying married to their original wives and (ostensibly anyway), not cheating anymore. Which seems to be preferable if you're into stuff like the sanctity of marriage.

I also could care less about the second wife being cheated on since she was cheating on his first wife with him. I wouldn't feel sorry for him at all if his current wife left him for another man.

The point is less feeling sorry for the second wife and more that Gingrich seems to be perfectly happy placing himself in a position of being a serial douchebag, which is not a quality that I seek out in my president. Also, I don't see any real evidence that he's all the repentant about it (especially when he tries to characterize his past affairs as "partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country"), which makes me think that the candidate we have today is that same serial slimeball who cheated on his wife at 38.

I had no major problem with Bill Clinton cheating on his wife. If I were married to Hillary I'd probably do the same. The issue I had with Bill Clinton (And Weiner) is lying about the facts after they were discovered. The same with John Edwards. I'll throw Herman Cain under the same bus the very moment I learn of him being caught in a lie about any infidelity.

That is interesting, that is the completely opposite of my stance on this. Pretty much the ONLY part of any of these stories that I care about are the respective douchebags initially cheating on their wives. The lies and scandal that comes after the discovery is just typical politician damage control behavior as far as I'm concerned (and in that respect not really distinguishable than from Gingrich's "passionate about this country" line of BS). But if a candidate's past behavior indicates that he doesn't even expect his wife to trust him, then I guess that is an issue for me.

Once again Newt's not the perfect candidate by any means, but one I can support based upon his intellect, and his positions.

Well, fair enough. I feel your pain on this: the Republican options at this point genuinely suck. I guess all I'm saying is, on the personal character issue, Gingrich is fundamentally damaged goods, and I'm not sure it makes sense to try to rationalize it otherwise when people call him out on it.

In other words, I can understand the "he's a huge slimeball, but he has the best ideas for how to run the country" argument, but probably not "he's not a huge slimeball" argument.

Charkoth - You are simply the most willfully blind tool I have ever encountered. Newt made calls for officials that were lobbying should be imprisoned AT THE SAME TIME he was lobbying for F&F. He did this at the time the housing crises was at it`s worst, making millions that he knew were being charged to the public. No... Not anyone being paid but those who did so at 25-30k a month to lobby for more. Wake up and stop being a tool.

"My boss shares many qualities with Newt including the history of infedelity but that doesn`t stop him from effectively leading our company and he has my respect as a businessman."

So as long as the trains run on time, moral and ethical issues can be overlooked and you can respect them? You are exactly the type of tool they look for.

I wouldn't call him a huge slimeball (nor would I call Clinton or Weiner slimeballs based upon evidence I'm aware of (Barring the possibility that Clinton may have actually raped someone). John Edwards however is the scum of the Earth. Not only did he cheat on his TRULY dying (and now dead) wife, but he lied about it, knocked her up, and used his power and supporters to keep it under wraps and financially pay her to keep quiet. If Newt had done something similar to that I'd never support him or anyone like that. That lapse of judgement is unforgivable and speaks of pure corruption (not a "hornball" syndrome).

I really wouldn't feel bad if Newt won the nomination and Presidency at all. He is actually a bit more to the left than I prefer but acceptably so and with positions that unlike McCain I can get behind.

I accepted Newts responses to his reasoning for cheating as probable (and of course a form of damage control as well since he tried to give an explanation). Personally I know exactly where he is coming from when you are geographically distant from your wife and working long hours day in and day out at your job. I've had an opportunity myself that was very difficult to pass up but thankfully God gave me strength to stay true. I can't say I feel Newt's belief in God mirrors my own or that he is just pandering to his base on that front (as ALL politicians do), but the religion of the leader of this country isn't nearly as important as his ability.

Do you even understand the concept of Lobbying progjmr? It is pretty evident you don't. It is not my job or desire to educate you. Until you educate yourself and come back with some actual facts to back up your responses please cease your rambling.

There is a big difference between someone who is bereft of morals and someone who has had lapses in moral judgement. When you find someone who hasn't had a lapse in moral judgement you'll also be dead since you'll be standing in front of Christ.

No man is perfect and there are varying degrees of morality. A host of past Presidents, some of them unfaithful to their wives have been recognized as good presidents. They were good presidents because they were effective leaders and they had a vision and the fortitude to bend others to their vision of America.

I don't blame Newt for being promiscuous any more than I blame Obama for smoking weed, in the big scheme of things those lapses in judgement don't define the person, they only show they are not perfect.

Let me know when Jesus Christ decides to run for the Democratic Nomination and I'll switch parties.

It appears it is you Charkoth who does not know what lobbying is. Newt was paid to get his contacts to listen and act. His lies of "oh, I was just paid a few million for advice" when F&F show evidence it was otherwise are hollow. Jesus or Newt... You are such a tool.

also the chick that says cain had a 14 year affair with her has phone records showing calls and text messages at all hours of the night, including 430 am, i dunno about you but i don`t wake up in the middle of the night and text my friends about financial advice

I wouldn't call him a huge slimeball (nor would I call Clinton or Weiner slimeballs based upon evidence I'm aware of (Barring the possibility that Clinton may have actually raped someone). John Edwards however is the scum of the Earth.

Yeah, of course. It didn't even occur to me to mention Edwards in this conversation since he's such an a-hole. The only elected position Edwards will ever work in again will be Undersecretary of the Glee Club of whatever prison he eventually gets sent to.

I accepted Newts responses to his reasoning for cheating as probable (and of course a form of damage control as well since he tried to give an explanation). Personally I know exactly where he is coming from when you are geographically distant from your wife and working long hours day in and day out at your job. I've had an opportunity myself that was very difficult to pass up but thankfully God gave me strength to stay true

Religion has nothing to do with this conversation. Understanding how a vow works is a fairly basic concept.

ahh yes Charkoth, Newt says they paid millions just for advice... Happens all the time... What a tool. Do you also buy into his anti-science stances? What about his removal of child labor laws? Yeah, lets form a permanent lower class! Is Nebu`s kid old enough to go clean toilets yet? Thats what Newt wants and thats what you support.

But hey... Newt said it so you will just go along with it like a good little tool.

Grover to some people Religion goes deeper than a spoken vow and the meaning of Honor. There are those who believe that God gives them the strength to do things and also believe their ability is a gift from God. Belief in one's self as the only power behind your actions is dangerous IMO.

That being said of course there are plenty of principled moral people who would not break a vow and who are not religious. I only attributed God to my ability to resist temptation, that is all I was saying.

Cain was lynched by the media because he dares to be a Black Conservative. It is intolerable to the liberal media establishment for a black person to not remain on the Democrat/Liberal Plantation. Face it black people -- Democrats owned you in the 1800s and they own you today! Only the slavery is self induced now --- Slavery to dependence on government, and the crushing of individual and independent accomplishment. They think you are just too poor and too black to do it on your own without them. How patronizing.....

Well killer for whatever reason my post was either edited or deleted and my entire answer to your ludicrous charges of lobbying was erased. The Bloomberg article links citations from Freddie Mac saying Newt NEVER lobbied for them. Newt has never been paid by Fannie Mae in any way, only Freddie Mac.

As the person making the blind ignorant accusations, please support your arguments with facts. The burden of proof is on the person making an accusation, not the person defending themselves. Please show me EVIDENCE of Newt lobbying for Freddie Mac or just stop wasting my time.

As I said in my deleted post, the if I believed every accusation I read on the internet without researching facts to validate them I'd think Obama was a Muslim Kenyan who was raised and trained by terrorists and who was financed by the New World Order to destroy America instead of the good intentioned yet dead wrong person he actually is.

- WTH did Nebu Edit my last post?
No. No one deleted your post unless it was some other mod that never does anything usually. BUG maybe?

Cain appears to be a womanizing scumbag. So like most politicians.

If I didn't know any personal details about newt, I'd say the guy is awesome and I agree with him. But then as I learn about his personal life, he sucks too. Personal life DOES matter. You can't separate the two. If you cheat on your own family and make bad decisions there, you'll have the same morals in your less important public job life.

Yeah Nebu it was probably a bug, maybe something at the end of my first link that caused it to reject the rest of the post. I've never seen you censor anyone on here, just never seen that happen before. Annoying.

I agree that personal life does matter. I'll support Cain over Newt as long as no evidence comes out that proves he was lying about these accusations. Newt I believe has the better chance to beat Obama though and as much as I hate to say it, we KNOW what an Obama presidency is like, I'll take Newt over Obama any day.

Progjmr You realize 1.8 million dollars over the course of 12 years isn't a lot of money right? My company will about that on my salary and benefits over twelve years and I don't have the benefit of having been Speaker of the House to add weight to my name.

Do you know what a retainer is? Is your business experience limited to taking cash from people at a register? I'm still waiting for your explanation of what Lobbying is and where Newt Lobbied for Freddie. Lobbying IS legal so it's not like if he was Lobbying someone wouldn't admit it. I'm still waiting on ANY evidence whatsoever from you but you know you can't produce it because it doesn't exist.

Who is the tool? The guy who researches things and verifies everything he believes or the guy who is "Drinking the cool-aid" that is spoon fed to him from the media and can't think for himself.

You are the tool Charkoth... and one without reading comprehension. It was not 12 years, it was a period of three years from 99 to `02 and two more years between `06 and `08... Not 12 years no matter how you add it up. Thats a lot of moeny to give "advice" to a company you think should not exist. I see you avoid completely the part, from your article, that he worked for the main lobbyist "giving advice" only... hahaha, talk about drinking the kool-aid. Thats not even a full time gig, just "giving advice" when asked... Kool-aid you say? What about this article which has for former execs claiming he is full of it? Let me guess... All liars? They always seem to all be liars. Denial, it`s not just a river in Egypt. Tool.

The problem in politics is the politicans taking corporate money or otherwise bought by someone. Someone at work suggested they ban all campaigning and just have a web site that lists the candidates and has links to their web sites.

Progjmr,
You're arguing semantics. I said over the course of twelve years. We're still not talking about a lot of money and this wasn't paid directly to Gingrich either, it was paid to his organization which had 10 employees if I recall.

Either way he never directly contacted Republican Congressman and women and there is no evidence that suggests he did. Your linked is headed "Newt Gingrich Defends Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Payments" when he was never even paid by Fannie Mae. Additionally it cites more "anonymous sources" which the media loves to use to convict people in a court of opinion and only says he offered advice on how to get support from Republicans. That isn't lobbying, it didn't all happen during the mortgage crisis, and he never publicly supported Fannie and Freddie so please tell me how your original statement was in any way true.

Killer I was talking about the people whom he supposedly lobbied not him turning himself in obviously. Can't you guys stick to FACTS to attack Newt? It's not like the guy has been a saint his whole life.

Nebu I agree completely, however there is no Evidence of Newt enacting or supporting any laws to support or aid Freddie Mac.

I think it should be a crime for politicians to take jobs in industries for legislation they authored or coauthored. For those who just signed legislation instead of authoring it the law would have to be worded to show some sort of direct aid like for a subsidy instead of something more general.

Personally I believe the best way to solve these types of problems isn't by addressing the symptoms (corrupt politicians) but by solving the problem via the Herman Cain approach: 9-9-9. Get rid of the laws that subsidize and pick winners and losers and put everyone on a fair playing field. With 82000+ pages of tax code it is much easier to hide this shit than something simple and fair.

And you were dead wrong, it was 5 part time years over a 9 year period. You also said you made the same. Working part time over 5 years? Bull.

"We`re still not talking about a lot of money"

A few million for part time work over 5 years? Not a lot of money? Are you high? Who do you think you are fooling with statements like that?

The only evidence he did not directly lobby is his word on it... oh, and that of the guy that would look like he did not do his job if he told the truth. Newt is a known liar and a very bad one at that. Lets look at his lies on food stamps Do you believe people are taking trips to Hawaii on food stamps? Newt said it... Do you believe him? You really believe all he did was give "advice" and "how to get support from republicans" but offered none of his contacts? What a tool.

"it didn`t all happen during the mortgage crisis"

No, 09-02 where he got 300k was not. 1.5 million for part time work in 06-08... Thats a good amount of it.

"so please tell me how your original statement was in any way true"

The one on good old republican values? Yeah, Newt has them in spades, hypocrite, liar, cheater, what a guy! no wonder you support him, you seem to do many of the same things.

Yes Progjmr I'm aware of the meaning of semantics as I am aware that arguing them detracts from the point of the argument and is usually a sign that someone has no substance to their original point.

Newt was first paid by Freddie in 1999 and it is now 2011, that's a 12 year period and if we're talking about (at most) 1.8 million dollars over a twelve year period(or even a 5 year period) then we're not talking about a substantial sum of money. For comparison purposes I offered the fact that my company spends almost an equivalent amount on my employment, getting into the details of which isn't something I care to discuss since this is all beside the point: Newt Gingrich didn't make money off of the Housing Crisis. That's the equivalent of saying anyone who invested in Goldman Sachs or any major bank or was paid by them "made money off of the Housing Crisis". You are implying a lack of ethics on his part by your statement but there is nothing in the EVIDENCE presented to suggest he did anything unethical. Newt Gingrich has always held name recognition and has value and experience in politics and washington. For a lobbyist to pay to consult him does not show a lack of ethics, maybe you think it is but that is your opinion not a fact.

EDIT: We're talking about a guy with a net worth south of 7 Million dollars. That is not really a whole lot for a guy who has written 23 books. You can find his financials here:Newt Net Worth

On the Food Stamp thing....get real. I personally know people who use their food stamps to buy food so they can use their cash on cigarettes and beer. There are plenty of underground markets and places where you can trade food stamps or food for cash as well. My assistant at work keeps telling me how his brother-in-law trades his mother in law foodstamps for cash so he can buy video games.

Hell one of my best friends used his unemployment check to pay for he and his girlfriend's plane tickets to Hawaii this year, all completely legal and by the rules. He is a consultant who is spends his summers vacationining aroud the world.

The problem that Newt is trying to point out it is VERY easy to manipulate the system and that the food stamp program is causing corruption (along with the unemployment program). There are plenty of people getting food stamps who don't need them. Considering such things are probable (depending on that state's particular rules) I don't see how you can say he is lying considering you don't know of any specific instances he could be referencing.

We need to go back to the program where we handed out actual Government subsidized food to those who needed FOOD. It is a hell of a lot harder to trade a wheel of cheese for a case of beer than some food stamps today. The reason we migrated to the system we have today is because "some people were too proud to stand in line for government food". In the words of Marsellus Wallace: "Fuck Pride". Anonymity allows corruption and we need to shed light on anyone and everyone who is taking advantage of this program, not make it easier to hide behind. Making things easier for people only encourages more people who don't need it to consider taking it.

Despite the people who cheat on food stamps so what...govts beens stealing money out of everyones checks all these years. and govt mandated poison vaccines on you as a baby before you can even have a say about it. trust me the govt is not suffering because laqueesha is spending her 200 dollars of food stamps on reeses cups.

its worse to have a dirtbag scum politician whos stealing 10`s of millions from the citizens. Or making you pay a property tax for land you owe, yes the sytem is messed up for food stampers but lets first fix the system from the top the president....needs to be a real president an honest president...not some stinking minion of the bankers and the united nations. thats not what our founding fathers had in mind.

Government steals money via inflation RRP. It isn't hurting because of "laqueesha" getting a handout, it is hurting because the people who aren't getting a net handout are disappearing as they become people getting a handout.

People steal 10s of millions from people be that executive, politician, or bank robber. Property tax is completely acceptable since it goes to fund your local government and infrastructure and you have a direct vote into approving tax increases/decreases.

I agree'd with Herman Cain more than the rest because 9-9-9 and an abolition of the tax code was the best first step towards eliminating the power in Washington. The problems we face today are multi-faceted so Newt has my support because he has the best proposals to fix them. No matter who wins the nomination, all of them have better plans (except maybe Huntsman) than Obama on getting us out of this mess.

I agree'd with Herman Cain more than the rest because 9-9-9 and an abolition of the tax code was the best first step towards eliminating the power in Washington. The problems we face today are multi-faceted so Newt has my support because he has the best proposals to fix them. No matter who wins the nomination, all of them have better plans (except maybe Huntsman) than Obama on getting us out of this mess.

I'm fairly sure you said the same stuff about McCain before this election, as well as any Republican during a mid-term election.

I have yet to see you criticize them at all.

It's real hard to understand what relative level you talk at because Obama hasn't done anything right, and Newt/et al have the answers to the secrets of the Universe. I feel some logical opinion lies in between those two extremes you voice oh so often.

Joe, not sure what you are referring to with McCain, I've never liked or supported McCain in the primary in any way although I voted for him in the general election and he, liberal lite though he is, was a better choice than Obama.

Newt definitely doesn't have all the answers but he's willing to start us in the right direction.

As I said I agreed with Cain more than Newt due to 9-9-9 but I'm perfectly satisfied with Newt. I do find John Stewart pretty damn funny though. He's by far my favorite liberal and what all liberals SHOULD be.

I delete my posts on Facebook not here Nebu.

To be honest I plan on running for Public office at some point and the last thing I need is someone trying to dig dirt on me somehow by some comment I made years before on Facebook. It is a sad world we live.

Edit: Ohh and for our Food Stampdiscussion. Millionaires on foodstamps.

To be honest I plan on running for Public office at some point and the last thing I need is someone trying to dig dirt on me somehow by some comment I made years before on Facebook. It is a sad world we live.

Being up front and honest about your past is nothing to avoid.

Edit: Ohh and for our Food Stampdiscussion. Millionaires on foodstamps.

So there exists a program that someone takes advantage of. Why not attack how it is being exploited instead of completely removing the program?

I'm always upfront and honest, I just don't care to give people ammunition that they can distort to use against me. As we saw with Cain, facts and evidence don't matter, only opinions. Most often the first thing people hear about someone is what they remember whether it is true, taken out of context, or completely false.

I don't think we should get rid of the program at all, only tailor it so that it gives people FOOD that is high in nutritional content and only to people that need it. Giving people something with actual cash value is not acceptable.

Requiring and verifying the proper information to should be mandatory before anyone receives anything.

I'm always upfront and honest, I just don't care to give people ammunition that they can distort to use against me. As we saw with Cain, facts and evidence don't matter, only opinions. Most often the first thing people hear about someone is what they remember whether it is true, taken out of context, or completely false.

If you don't want to be held responsible for your actions, then don't do those actions.

And if Cain's opponents had nothing more than opinion to go after him, why did he not remain in the race? As a front-runner he would simply be like any other politician that needs to gracefully dodge false attacks. Occam's Razor dictates that there was something behind the accusations (other than previous settlements) and Cain realized he would have no chance.

I'd love to know how you've served or are planning to serve the public - and what other actions you've started in preparation of your run for public office (other than deleting traces of your opinions - it's not wrong to change you mind).

The best candidate isn't the one who is elected, it is the one who is percieved to be the best. Perception IS reality in matters of opinion (A Vote). I've rarely said things in my life that I didn't mean or wish I could take back, I'd stand behind everything I've ever said.

The issue is Cain's opponents didn't NEED any evidence to take him down, they only needed to destroy his fundraising and enough of the vote to destroy his lead. He was convicted in a court of opinion and sadly that is how politics work. You don't need evidence and unlike in a court of law, in politics you don't need unanimous agreement to convict someone of something that isn't true.

Cain dropped out because he is a realist, I would have done the same if I were him. His candidacy had no way to fight nonfactual accusations against him as to do so he would have to PROVE he was innocent. This is why attack ads are so prominent in politics and why the majority of them are completely false or twisting the truth.

Look back through history and look at the victors of elections and you'll find a history of excellent attack ads against their opponents.

Remember the John Kerry Swiftboat ads? The John Kerry Windsailing Ad? I do.

Occams Razor has nothing to do with this. You seem to be implying that it is a simpler solution that Cain was a womanizer versus the alternative that he is the victim of a calculated attack. He was a politician running for the most powerful position on the planet with a plan that made enemies of almost every major corporation that is on the public dole.

Just as my views on police at the UC Davis "pepper spraying" incident have been vindicated, I'm sure the truth will eventually come out about Cain.

Man those police have more patience than I could have mustered. I would have used the pepper spray or a tazer far earlier than he did.

Yeah that supposed "Fact" about Newt is amusing, or would be if so many didn't think it was true.

My opinion on politics is this: We spend far too much time debating things that are not important and not enough on what should matter: The issues.

If Cain had lost because 9-9-9 wasn't what people wanted, or they didn't agree with his foreign policy approach I would have been fine with that. There are plenty of things to disagree on without delving into people's personal lives and habits with some exception of serious criminal convictions (not charges).

It is politics like these that are giving us the phony garbage politicians we currently have instead of effective problem solvers who may have some baggage that is public.

The #1 reason why Newt is the one who has catapulted to the top of the Republican ticket IMO, is because he refuses to engage in these ridiculous games the media and most of America loves to watch. Our Politics shouldn't play out like the Jerry Springer show.

It is politics like these that are giving us the phony garbage politicians we currently have instead of effective problem solvers who may have some baggage that is public.

That's sort of life nowadays though. You can't get a job anywhere nowadays without a potential employer scouring Facebook to see if you have too many pictures of yourself partying after work with the boyz. I'm not sure why potential presidential candidates could realistically expect their background checks to not be similarly arbitrary.

I understand your point, but you're saying Cain did nothing and is bowing out solely due to accusations.

You're actually committing these actions that you are then covering up later by deleting.

I don't see those as similar.

Remember the John Kerry Swiftboat ads? The John Kerry Windsailing Ad? I do.

That was ridiculous, I actually got pretty pissed at Kerry/Democrats for not just coming out swinging. I can't believe Bush was able to use Kerry's service against him.

However, I still don't see your point. It was Kerry's fault for letting that occur - all you're doing is covering up any evidence that may give people an idea of what you're personality/opinions are like in reality.

It may be politics as usual, but then you're essentially nothing more than the same people that we on TV running for the Republican nomination.

Joe,
I'm not saying Cain did nothing, I'm saying there is no EVIDENCE Cain did anything. He is bowing out solely due to the accusations, he was (barely) the front runner until these started. This exactly mirrors what was done to the head of the IMF who was the front runner for the presidency of France. Everyone thought he was guilty, he was forced to leave the IMF and his career as a politician was destroyed and in the end he had done nothing wrong!

When will you not see that whether you are right or wrong doesn't matter in politics? Everything is smoke and mirrors and perception.

I'm not "committing" anything or covering them up I'm simply deleting posts I make after they outlive their usefulness for conveying my thoughts to someone on something. Because I'm not expressing neutrality in opinions someone could in theory parse through thousands of lines of text that I write and find a single sentence I've said to use against me.

Now at some point in the future maybe I forget what I've said(who remembers everything they've written) and say I never said that. Now I'm a liar when in fact I just forgot the context of my words and where I said it. Yeah it seems stupid and maybe paranoid but the magnitude that people go to dig up dirt on people is insane, and you don't have to be wrong, people only have to THINK you are wrong. People set up traps all the time for people to stumble in. As I said before, why give people ammunition? Is there a reason I want a history of everything I've said possible made available to the public at some point in the future? If I could guarantee the same would be done for all of my opponents I'd gladly have everything I've ever said aired out, but I can't guarantee that so I have to play by their rules.

Part of the problem is the vast majority of people have so little role models they can trust in any place of authority that when they hear something evil they will generally believe it, regardless of the evidence.

Chosing the high ground didn't work for Herman Cain, why do you think it would work for me? This is all theory anyways, my future role in politics is only a possibility I'm planning for.

When will you not see that whether you are right or wrong doesn't matter in politics? Everything is smoke and mirrors and perception.

I'm not "committing" anything or covering them up I'm simply deleting posts I make after they outlive their usefulness for conveying my thoughts to someone on something. Because I'm not expressing neutrality in opinions someone could in theory parse through thousands of lines of text that I write and find a single sentence I've said to use against me.

Now at some point in the future maybe I forget what I've said(who remembers everything they've written) and say I never said that. Now I'm a liar when in fact I just forgot the context of my words and where I said it. Yeah it seems stupid and maybe paranoid but the magnitude that people go to dig up dirt on people is insane, and you don't have to be wrong, people only have to THINK you are wrong. People set up traps all the time for people to stumble in. As I said before, why give people ammunition? Is there a reason I want a history of everything I've said possible made available to the public at some point in the future? If I could guarantee the same would be done for all of my opponents I'd gladly have everything I've ever said aired out, but I can't guarantee that so I have to play by their rules.

Part of the problem is the vast majority of people have so little role models they can trust in any place of authority that when they hear something evil they will generally believe it, regardless of the evidence.

Chosing the high ground didn't work for Herman Cain, why do you think it would work for me? This is all theory anyways, my future role in politics is only a possibility I'm planning for.

I do not look forward to this future.

edit: Just so you know this is my personal opinion, but, even if I find myself disagreeing with a Presidential Candidate, if I feel they are upfront about their past, their current opinions/ideals and their ability to pragmatically approach each of their points, I would probably vote for them. Other political offices are different, but with the President, I feel they tend to act towards helping the Nation as a whole. I realize that their political stance will dictate some leanings here and there, but if I believe they will act on behalf of the whole Nation and not only those who voted for them, I'd support them.

I've already tested deleting posts with cacheing in google + and when you delete them within a week or so the posts dissapear from search results.

Worse comes to worse I can always go back through all of my 1700 comments on expect nothing.com and delete them! Seriously though, I'm only really interested in protecting things attached directly to my IRL name and my handle that I'm mainly known by.

When I post things that could be easily misconstrued or whenever I'm trolling someone that pisses me off I usually post under an alternate handle like Jim Beam or Jack Daniels (=

Btw apparently facebook stores all of your comments and posts internally. A European law requires facebook to give its users copies of everything that they have stored about that user if they request it and it`s essentially everything that they`ve ever done, deleted or not.

Check out http://infosthetics.com/archives/2011/12/all_the_information_facebook_knows_about_you.html

Yeah I'm sure all companies keep copies of that stuff but as long as no one from the public can access it that is fine.

I couldn't even watch 30 seconds of that X factor video. Do people actually watch that garbage? No wonder this country is so screwed up. RRP is woried about the government destroying our minds with flouride and we're doing it ourselves watching television like this.

As a guy, you would think I would side with Kobe, but as for men that cheat on their wife, after promising to be faithful, he should lose everything and have to start all over again. Same would go for a woman that cheats.

If you are a religious person, that took vows, and made a promise before GOD, you should lose you genitals.

I don't believe in moments of weakness, that is just an a-holes excuse for wanting to cheat. If you ever think you will be cheating in the future, you should have not got married. Sleep around all you want, just make damn well sure that a baby isn't made, and don't get married. I would respect a guy more that admits he is a male slut and doesn't get married then one that cheats on his wife.

Before I get flamed for saying that, most people will come back and say that if his home life was awful, that justifies it. NO, IT DOESN'T! Get a divorce before you start sleeping around.

There are far worse crimes than cheating on your wife committed every day with far less punishment than you suggest. While personally I agree with your assessment of marriage and the seriousness of the vows I do not believe we can expect others to live up to OUR moral standards on the matter.

I'd support physically castration of child molesters far before I'd support castration for infidelity.

There are also cases of women who are gold diggers who will do anything to get a paycheck out of their victim. I don't think this is the case with Kobe, but is it the fault that someone of means falls for a beautiful woman who pretends to be in love with him?

Divorces often take a long time to work out, more-so if you are wealthy. Marriages are over long before the legal documents are finalized in my opinion. If two people state an intention to separate, all bets are off. The rest is just legal baggage.

No, not a troll. I am just sick of seeing people that kids look up to being okay with cheating on their spouses. Even if they are "just human", or they say they are just athletes and kids shouldn't look up to them. You are a person that took vows, so basically you shouldn't be trusted in any matters, be it personal or business because your words are lies. You are okay ruining your own family, kids and wife, just for that?

I'm not angry because of personal issues in my own family either. My parents have been married for 48 years, I have been married for almost 19.

I will never run for public office as I don't feel I am smart enough. Although I feel that most people that run for office aren't smart enough themselves.

I partially agree with Bloodclot. I'd be all for legalizing murder of one's spouse, for that matter. Genital mutilation for infidelity is just the beginning. The vow is sacred. Just wanted to help him out since it looked like some people don't take him seriously.

On the other hand, I disagree about "child" molesters if it includes the area from post-puberty to (insert arbitrary age by state) and go the opposite direction and legalize all that. I'd support castration of real child molesters.

@Gamelore - I would have to disagree with you on legalizing sex with post-puberty kids. Most of the time kids under 18 aren't mentally ready to do the deed, let alone raise a child. Let's face it, having sex isn't all about having kids, but it does, can, and will happen. Most 18 year old kids I know aren't mentally ready to do either, let alone a 14 year old that has passed through puberty.

About the Deckard Cain photo, I'd like some more evidence of that. I'd like to hear from a Schaefer or Bill Roper about it, but if it's true, that's awesome. Does seem like something BNorth would have done.

GroverDill I don't think that is "Christian" at all and nothing he said indicates he was even speaking of a Christian marriage as he said "Religious". To his point I think he is just frustrated with our cultural acceptance and even expectation of moral failure.

As a society we must find a balance between acceptable punishment and Anarchy.

In my opinion we are slowly moving to an Anarchic society as evidenced by the breakdown of our moral fabric due to liberal values being taught in our schools. Acceptance of moral failure should never be rewarded. I think when it comes to marriage there is nothing in the books that are beneficial for cheaters and there isn't really a need to mutilate them.

Gamelore I agree with you to an extent after puberty if the "criminal" is within a similar age group. I have no pity for 20+ year olds who think it is OK to have sex with 13-14 year olds. Maybe a 16-17 year is more acceptable since he/she is still a child but if you're having sex with someone who is more than 3 years younger than you and you're an adult, you should lose your balls.

In my opinion we are slowly moving to an Anarchic society as evidenced by the breakdown of our moral fabric due to liberal values being taught in our schools.

Like tolerance? No one's ever tried teaching that before.

Also, don't talk about how the Education budget is routinely slashed, as well as the hiring of teachers who don't give a shit and also the interference of parents that are eroding any sort of silent respect that students would give their teachers.

But blame the liberals, it's easier that way. Such a cop out.

Schools are doing terrible for so many reasons, liberal morals is barely one of them. If anything, it is equal to intolerant parents who hold their children back from the rich experience of grammar/middle/high school.

GroverDill I don't think that is "Christian" at all and nothing he said indicates he was even speaking of a Christian marriage as he said "Religious". To his point I think he is just frustrated with our cultural acceptance and even expectation of moral failure.

No? What manner of God do you think BloodClot was referring to when he said

If you are a religious person, that took vows, and made a promise before GOD, you should lose you genitals.

Better yet, hey BloodClot: what manner of God were you referring to? Let me just say that if you were talking about Zoroastrianism (and the Great Creator Ahura Mazda), please accept my humblest apologies in advance.

Tolerance is acceptance and we should never have acceptance of moral decay.

The problem is the parents you are referencing have already moved through the system so we are now in a third and possibly 4th generation of students moving through a flawed system. More funding isn't the problem, plenty of people with much less did far more throughout the history of this country.

The "Slashed" budgets you are speaking of are only "Slashed" from their inflated baseline budgeting not actual prior year expenditures. That's a common tactic of liberals to decry budget trimming that is actually still a year over increase.

Grover I wasn't aware Christianity was the only religion that involved vows to God. Islam for one uses vows to Allah and is much more supportive of the views expressed by bloodclot for infidelity than Christianity.

Either way your words were a thinly veiled attack on Christianity. If you are going to say it, at least have the balls to stand behind your twisted views.

Grover I wasn't aware Christianity was the only religion that involved vows to God. Islam for one uses vows to Allah and is much more supportive of the views expressed by bloodclot for infidelity than Christianity.

Either way your words were a thinly veiled attack on Christianity. If you are going to say it, at least have the balls to stand behind your twisted views.

Haha, listen jackass: my points are not directed at Christianity in general as much as they are at BloodClot specifically, since the points that he made are HIS ACTUAL ESPOUSED VIEWS. I don't care to speculate further on BloodClot's religion, since it's silly to do so. He is welcome to share if he wants to, and then we will have precious clarity on this matter. However, I can say with 100% certainty that whatever religion BloodClot identifies as is unambiguously the religion I was referring to with the Sharia law comment. If it makes you feel better, I will henceforth revise my comment thusly:

Whheeeee! Sounds like some kooky EDIT: THE RELIGION TO WHICH BLOODCLOT ASCRIBES Sharia law to me. Make sure this guy doesn't get on a plane.

If I assume that BloodClot is a Christian it is not because I have it out for Christianity (because of my twisted views HAHAHADERPHA) so much as figuratively 99% of the people on this site who claim a stance on religion have historically done so as either Christian or atheist, and atheists don't typically get exercised about people violating their vows to God. Basically, it was a conclusion based on earnest forum profiling, which strikes me as something that you could get behind.

In other words, nothing I said was at all an attack on Christianity, either in effect or intent. I'm frankly not sure how you could come to that conclusion given what I said.

charkoth telling someone to have the balls to stand behind his twisted views, thats a joke.

you talk about tolerance being acceptance, as a christian nutjob you should be out there rallying against people like bloodclot, cause unless he goes to the same church as you he is WRONG, there can only be one god, and only one religion, all others are abominations, stop tolerating the moral decay of your religion

Just because someone isn't vocal about their religion doesn't mean you can lump them in with what you assume is everyone else. Do you really think a Muslim would identify themselves as such on this forum? Probably about as much chance at that as a Homosexual doing the same. I suspect we have both homosexuals and Muslims who read and post here, but have no interest in inviting attacks on themselves by revealing their views.

I honestly believe you had no intention of attacking Christianity, you are simply a product of the society that formed you. Attacks on Christianity are so commonplace in the media and public forums that people are blind to it while jumping on the slightest hint of bigotry when someone mentions a homosexual or a black person unfavorably(unless they are Republican of course).

Killer if someone thinks their views are Christian they are welcome to their opinion. If someone identifies themselves as Christian with a statement that is most definitely NOT Christian I will correct them. There is nothing twisted about that at all. I'm very open an honest with myself and my beliefs.

Personally, I'm extremely tolerant. If bloodclot had implied Christianity required the castration of an adulterer I'd have corrected him. Grover made implication so I made my point. I'm sure someone could try to say in the old testament it says to stone adulterers which it does. Thinking the judgments in the old testament apply to Christianity is a mistake however. Adultery remains a sin just as homosexuality is, but it isn't for us to judge. I'm not God, I didn't make the rules and I don't judge people, he does. If I think someone is not Christian, it is my opinion based upon my observation and understanding of the facts. I could be dead wrong even if I don't believe I am.

My religion hasn't decayed, and the word of God is eternal. It is written that the path to salvation is the least travelled one, the only thing I can do is make sure I am on it. It is also written to beware wolves in sheeps clothing and false prophets. Our society loves to label these people as "Christian" despite their teachings, acts, and beliefs being very unChristian. The whole point is these people exist to mislead people. If I accept what they say then I am no different than the other sheep who are mislead by the wolves. I follow the one true shepherd.

but shouldn`t you be out trying to stop the false prophets? and it`s not mostly society labeling things as christian, its the people themselves, im sure you don`t agree with westboro baptist people but they call themselves christian, i`d say society is staunchly against those people and makes fun of them for thinking they are christian

if i were a christian i`d say anytime someone like those people or mormons say christ said soemthing i dont` believe he said they`d be decaying or watering down the message

Do you really think a Muslim would identify themselves as such on this forum? Probably about as much chance at that as a Homosexual doing the same. I suspect we have both homosexuals and Muslims who read and post here, but have no interest in inviting attacks on themselves by revealing their views.

I don't believe that Muslims or homosexuals would have the slightest hesitation to reveal themselves on this forum. Why would they? It's an anonymous forum and those who would attack them on this forum are idiots who would easily be exposed as such, as they have many, many times in the past.

I honestly believe you had no intention of attacking Christianity, you are simply a product of the society that formed you. Attacks on Christianity are so commonplace in the media and public forums that people are blind to it while jumping on the slightest hint of bigotry when someone mentions a homosexual or a black person unfavorably(unless they are Republican of course).

Give me some credit dude.

First, I was not attacking Christianity, and I reject the notion that I was somehow attacking Christianity subconsciously because I grew up watching cable. I parse my words very carefully. If I DO at some point decide to attack Christianity, that attack will likely take the form of: "Christianity is dumb because ___________". Short of that, stop trying to read subtext into my words that doesn't exist.

Second, my reasons for dismissing Christianity are every bit as considered as your reasons for observing it. If you believe that I am an atheist because I simply do not approach the subject with benefit of your incredible insight, you are wrong.

the most interesting thing about that cold war sattelite story is the fact that they had 60 miles of film in them, it`s shocking that 50 years ago even top secret government stuff needed film, today i wouldn`t even know where to buy a roll of film